PR Week Forums

Industry backs controversial campaign aimed at cutting PR spam

Last post 02-07-2010 10:24 AM by
 
29 replies.
 
Sort Posts:
<  1 2
  • 01-29-2010 2:04 PM
    In reply to

    RE: Industry backs controversial campaign aimed at cutting PR spam

    Having listened intently to the ensuing debate since yesterday morning, it seems to me that there is a real desire to have this discussion and some fantastic points, suggestions and comments are being made. However in constructing the language around the campaign we appear to have put up a barrier for some in the form of some of the language used. The worded "demanded" was used in conjunction with the word "believe" as we had based this initial list on public posts written over the years by journalists and bloggers and by feedback from the research. However this did not mean that we "know" that these are demanded by *all*, that is one of the things this campaign and the resulting debate is aiming to establish. Secondly the title the "Bill of Rights" seems to have got some peoples' backs up. Leaving aside whether we would be having such a fascinating conversation if softer language had been used we do not want this to be, as Will says, just a publicity stunt and this week's bandwagon. So if people will help us we are offering to tear it up and start again. What should this be called? What should be in it? Should it represent both sides of this debate? Alternatively forget about this campaign and someone else take up the standard – CIPR, PRCA? What matters most is surely that having got this discussion started we don't miss this opportunity.

  • 01-29-2010 2:27 PM
    In reply to

    RE: Industry backs controversial campaign aimed at cutting PR spam

    what I never get about ridiculously boring debate is this: Why don't journalists just delete emails they dont want like the rest of us do? And why dont PRs just foster relationships better. The whole thing's ridiculous.

  • 01-29-2010 2:30 PM
    In reply to

    RE: Industry backs controversial campaign aimed at cutting PR spam

    what I never get about ridiculously boring debate is this: Why don't journalists just delete emails they dont want like the rest of us do? And why dont PRs just foster relationships better The whole thing's ridiculously dull. And also, isnt the term 'bill of rights' dramatically overstating the issue? just do your job better. On both sides.

  • 01-29-2010 2:35 PM
    In reply to

    RE: Industry backs controversial campaign aimed at cutting PR spam

    PR and media response to the Inconvenient PR Truth campaign launched yesterday falls into two camps: broad agreement or a direct challenge, not to the key message of the campaign, but its style. The irony could not be more delicious. The campaign has utilised a well worn PR tactic, namely powerful content, to get attention. It's pulled in opinion from across the industry and is now an open platform for discussion. And there has been lots of positive input. But the campaign's language has also been the target of criticism. It stands accused of dramatising the issue yet much of the content is collated, or crowdsourced to use digital parlance, from articles and blogs where PR spam has been debated over the past two to three years. Realwire and the campaign in general have been called "arrogant" for its approach to raising the issue. I caught up with its CEO Adam Parker for breakfast this morning. He has strong opinions which he is forthright in sharing but he certainly isn't arrogant. Engage on the issue and you'll find out for yourself. As Parker says in his latest post on the campaign site his objective is to create a discussion around the issue across the PR and media industries and work towards some solutions. Yes of course it would be great if a PR or media industry organisation or publication was campaigning on this issue – but they aren't and none have picked it up until now. Final thought: maybe PR spam isn't really the issue that it is claimed to be in which case the campaign will die a natural death. But I doubt it.

  • 01-29-2010 3:07 PM
    In reply to

    RE: Industry backs controversial campaign aimed at cutting PR spam

    I don't think there is a massively crumbling relationship between PR and journalism: my experience \(I'm another who's served on both sides) is that it's pretty much where it always was. It's also true that the issue of poor press release practices is not a new one – nor is the issue of poor journalism. What's new, though, is that it's become ever easier, on the one hand, to send press releases out electronically in high volumes, indiscriminately, as if it's direct mail looking for response rates, and ever easier, on the other hand, for journalists to block them electronically and silently, potentially cutting the wheat with the chaff. As a result, some journos are being very vocal about a failing system and some high profile PRs are – utterly wrongly – declaring the press release a lost cause. What's also new is that some bloggers without a journalist background are being drawn into the PR world for the first time and not all of them like what they find there. The press release is neither a lost cause nor outmoded – I can attest to that on a daily basis – but I fear the balance is shifting and there's a danger of self-fulfilling prophesies, damaging the symbiosis between PR and journalism and therefore hurting both sides. That's why, when Realwire approached us at Press Dispensary about supporting the campaign from launch, I gave a resounding agreement. Maybe there is some robust \(inflammatory?) phrasing in there and maybe that's a good thing if it provokes the discussion that it is provoking. The language and detail are up for grabs but the principle – of more diligence, of examining attitudes and consciences – is an utterly sound one. Rob Shepherd Press Dispensary

  • 01-29-2010 3:08 PM
    In reply to

    RE: Industry backs controversial campaign aimed at cutting PR spam

    I don't think there is a massively crumbling relationship between PR and journalism: my experience \(I'm another who's served on both sides) is that it's pretty much where it always was. It's also true that the issue of poor press release practices is not a new one – nor is the issue of poor journalism. What's new, though, is that it's become ever easier, on the one hand, to send press releases out electronically in high volumes, indiscriminately, as if it's direct mail looking for response rates, and ever easier, on the other hand, for journalists to block them electronically and silently, potentially cutting the wheat with the chaff. As a result, some journos are being very vocal about a failing system and some high profile PRs are – utterly wrongly – declaring the press release a lost cause. What's also new is that some bloggers without a journalist background are being drawn into the PR world for the first time and not all of them like what they find there. The press release is neither a lost cause nor outmoded – I can attest to that on a daily basis – but I fear the balance is shifting and there's a danger of self-fulfilling prophesies, damaging the symbiosis between PR and journalism and therefore hurting both sides. That's why, when Realwire approached us at Press Dispensary about supporting the campaign from launch, I gave a resounding agreement. Maybe there is some robust \(inflammatory?) phrasing in there and maybe that's a good thing if it provokes the discussion that it is provoking. The language and detail are up for grabs but the principle – of more diligence, of examining attitudes and consciences – is an utterly sound one.

  • 01-31-2010 5:39 PM
    In reply to

    RE: Industry backs controversial campaign aimed at cutting PR spam

    Interesting concept and debate. When I saw the headline that said the "industry" was backing this campaign, I searched the story for mention of any of the major global agencies or any mention of the major PR organizations \(PRSA, Institute, Council, Page, etc.). Not that the four individuals mentioned who are backing the campaign aren't credible and smart -- but do you think saying the entire INDUSTRY backs this is a bit of overkill? Not one major agency \(i.e., Edelman, Fleishman, Burson, Weisscom, WagEd -- I'm just using PR Week's own list of leading agencies here) and not one association of any sort??

  • 01-31-2010 10:00 PM
    In reply to

    RE: Industry backs controversial campaign aimed at cutting PR spam

    I'm in favour of the campaign apart from the fact that it is a PR campaign in itself and therefore rather self serving for those involved. I advocate a code of conduct set up via the CIPR and/or PRCA - in conjunction with the NUJ - which sets out some rules regarding training junior execs in building contacts and contacting journalists. It should be about increasing professional accountablity and skill across the industry rather than a PR opportunity for those within it...

  • 01-31-2010 10:29 PM
    In reply to

    RE: Industry backs controversial campaign aimed at cutting PR spam

    Jonathan and Kathy we agree with you about the need to widen involvement and include the CIPR, PRCA and other relevant industry bodies as I said in my comment above. On a related topic we have posted up answers to what seem to represent the main FAQs based on the conversations we have seen and engaged in. Re: the animation here http://bit.ly/AIPRTanimfaq and the Bill of Rights here http://bit.ly/AIPRTbillfaq . Which we hope will help people to understand the thinking behind the campaign better.

  • 02-01-2010 10:19 AM
    In reply to

    RE: Industry backs controversial campaign aimed at cutting PR spam

    Like many of the commentators here, I have been on both sides of the fence - journalist and PR for more years than I care to remember. I would suggest that some PRs would do well to gain a basic idea of how to write a decent press release \(including punctuation, spelling and grammar), and that they don't confuse PR with sales. All too often I used to get so-called press releases that were a not-very-well-disguised sales ploy, followed by loads of irritating calls which began with "how are you today?". Being asked how I am by a total stranger who clearly has no interest in my well-being is something I would also add to the 'banned' list.

  • 02-01-2010 6:19 PM
    In reply to

    RE: Industry backs controversial campaign aimed at cutting PR spam

    As members of the press have commented, journalists need contact from PRs so I don't agree with some of the generalisations put forward in this bill. I don't believe that emailing press releases - even well written, relevant and targeted ones - always works without a conversation. Too often a journalist has responded positively to a phone call and ended up running a story they hadn't seen, despite the timely email that was sent some hours before. So, until that contradiction is cleared up, I think it's a difficult argument to win because human contact works. But I welcome the idea of championing the importance of intelligent, relevant media relations because the alternative is miserable for all involved. It can't be any fun reaching your 20th stressed journo of the day with yet another "have you actually read our publication" or "but we don't do health stories" or "do you understand this is a NEWS programme?" It partly requires PRs to be genuinely media conscious and to understand their target media and yes, it's about well written press releases but it's also about diligently updating industry knowledge and contact lists regularly. I agree the tone of the bill is a little accusatory and as such, it perhaps falls short of creating a level playing field from which to launch this debate but I take my hat off to the sentiment. I think it's very healthy to sit back and challenge ourselves to re-think how we do things. It can only make us more effective.

  • 02-02-2010 4:10 PM
    In reply to

    RE: Industry backs controversial campaign aimed at cutting PR spam

    I totally agree with Clare Southeard. I'd add that in my experience, calls to reporters on local papers after a release has been sent can be necessary and are not always unwelcome. Sometime, their inboxes get full, perhaps over the weekend, and they delete everything without checking through \(possibly because they know a lot won't be wanted ...). If you know what they really will want to use \(because you have a relationship with them and understand each other), it's never a problem calling, provided your call is not on a deadline. This is all about intelligent targetting. I'd rather send out six press releases and get 100% coverage in the right media than send out 100 and get 10% in less useful media. Unfortunately, some bosses don't understand that... As an interim who often works in the public sector, I've worked with a lot of ex-journalists. All have commented that they didn't know the breadth of work a PRO undertakes, and had renewed respect for them once they'd joined their ranks. I was lucky in my early years as a PRO in being invited to spend a morning on the picture desk of the local paper, where I found my own releases being handled. It would help if we could walk a few miles in each others shoes, but the economic environment is not very conducive to that right now. There is no place for arrogance on either side; we have a symbiotic relationship and really do need each other.

  • 02-03-2010 4:32 AM
    In reply to

    RE: Industry backs controversial campaign aimed at cutting PR spam

    The one point that everyone seems to be missing here is not how you send the story out, but that you actually have a story to send out. As a PR hack I regularly dissuade clients from sending out a non-newsworthy release because it will hurt the agencys relationship with the journalist/publication as much as it will hurt the client. As far as the tactics, I think that the 'Bill of Rights' is a piece of crap. Just like media organisations are cutting the amount of journalists \(and they have to rely on PRs more), PR budgets are also being squeezed - so sometimes a procured list is the easiest way to make sure you have reached everyone that the story is relevant to. If it doesn't concern you, press the delete button, i use it at least 100 times a day. I agree with not calling to ask if they've received a press release, but sometimes its necessary. Today I called a national health editor with that exact same question and do you know what his response was? "Thanks for bringing that one to my attention- it's a good piece of news"

  • 02-05-2010 2:16 PM
    In reply to

    RE: Industry backs controversial campaign aimed at cutting PR spam

    I commented above that it was clear to us based on the initial response that the campaign would be more constructive and inclusive if leadership on the issues raised was taken forward by the industry bodies. We are therefore delighted to see that the CIPR is going to take the issues raised by the campaign forward as per Jay O'Connor's statement last night http://www.cipr.co.uk/News/releases/2010/February/inconvenient_truth_response.html and that the PRCA are also indicating that they would support such a move.

  • 02-07-2010 10:24 AM
    In reply to

    RE: Industry backs controversial campaign aimed at cutting PR spam

    Oh dear. I didn't see this until the print version of PR Week arrived on Friday. This could be unkindly represented as a PR campaign by four magnates to raise their own profile again, and to boost their competitive advantage. If you're the volunteer PRO for a tiny voluntary organisation which is going to do it's annual thing, and you need to send out press releases to your regional media \(probably 200-300 papers, magazines, radio and TV) are you really going to be able to ring them all up beforehand to ask for permission? And, since they've never heard of you, are they likely to give it? Much more likely they will think you are a rank amateur for ringing up in the first place. Media outlets vary in what they want -- BBC radio wants you to ring, hard-pressed local weekly newspapers want a press release which they can quickly crib. But, if they want your stuff, they will use it. For the rest, this 'bill of rights' is about some standard good practice, mixed in with some unworkables. As pointed out earlier on this thread, any such relationship should be reciprocal.

    Martin Turner MCIPR Chartered PR Practitioner
Page 2 of 2 (30 items)

ADVERTISING